### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 20
- 00263
- CV

E. L. and P. M., Appellant s

v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 419TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D
- 1
- FM
- 18
- 006918, THE HONORABLE AMY CLARK MEACHUM, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
E.L. and P.M. appeal from a final decree terminating their respective parental rights to their child

. Following trial on the merits , the district court found by clear an d

c onvincing e vi dence tha t mul ti ple s ta tutory grounds support terminating E .L. ’ s parental rights and that termination is in the best interest of the child

. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), ( M ), (O) , (P) , (b)(2)

. T he district court also found b y clear and co nv incing ev idence that multiple statu tory grounds support termi nating P.M. ’ s parental rights and that termination is in the bes t interest of the child

. See id . § 161.001(b)(1)( N ), (O) , ( Q ) , (b)(2)

.

The court

- appointed atto rneys for E.L. a nd P.M. have e a ch f iled a motion to withdr aw acco mpanied by a brief concluding that any appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) (stating that court

- appointed counsel who believes appeal is who lly frivolo us should file m o tion to wi thd raw “ac companied by a brief2

referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal”); In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (approving use of Anders procedure in appeals f rom termina ti on of parental righ ts)

. Each attorney ’ s brief mee ts the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating that there are no

a rguable grounds for reversal to be advanced on appeal. See 386 U.S. at 744; Taylo r v. T exas Dep’t of Pr otec tive & Re gulato ry Serv s. , 160 S .W.3d 641, 646

– 47 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in parental

- rights termination case ). Each attorney has certified to this Court that he or she provided the client with a copy of the A nde rs b rief , the motion to with dra w , and a not ice of the right to file a pro se brief.

In response to her attorney ’ s brief, E.L. filed a motion to proceed pro se

. We provided her with access to the reco rd on appeal and instructions on how to pro ceed in the case . To date, n either E .L. nor P.M. has filed a brief responding to the Anders briefing

. The Department of Family an d Pro tective Services , appellee in this matter, has filed a letter indicating that it waives its right to file a brief in this matter

.

Upon re ceipt of an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of the proceedings to determine whethe r the appeal is whol ly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75,
80 (1988)

. After reviewing the record before us , w e find nothing that would arguably support a meritorious appeal. We thus ag ree with counsel that this appeal is friv olous and without m erit.

We neverthel ess deny t he attorneys ’ respective motion s to withdraw

. I n P. M

. , the
Su preme Court of Texas explai ned that a parent ’ s right to counse l in termi nation suits extends t o “all proceedings in [the Supr eme Court of Texas ], including the f il ing o f a petition fo r revi ew.”
See 520 S.W.3d at 27 . Accordingly, the attorneys ’ obligations have not yet been discha rged. See id. If E.L. or P.M. desi res to fil e a petitio n for review, counsel should timely file with3

t he high court “a pet ition for review that satisfies the standards for an An der s brief.” See i d. at 27

– 28. For the reaso ns stated herein, we affirm the decree terminating E.L. ’ s and P. M. ’ s parental rights and deny their attorneys ’ respective motion s to w i thdraw. W e dismiss as moot
E.L. ’ s motion to proceed pro se.

__________ ________________________________ Edward Smith , Justice
Be fore Justices Go odwin, T riana , and Smith Affirmed Filed: October 6 , 2020